Glaister & Anor, R (on the application of) v Assistant Coroner for North Wales

Glaister & Anor, R (on the application of) v Assistant Coroner for North Wales

Breaches of the court embargo occurred through disclosure of the confidential draft judgment and its substance to journalists and internal marketing staff, contrary to express terms and legal principles. Only the breach by Ms Pearson after clear instruction may constitute contempt, but lack of deliberate intent and mitigating circumstances render contempt proceedings unnecessary.

Parties
Claimant: THE KING (GLAISTER and CARR); Defendant: ASSISTANT CORONER FOR NORTH WALES; Interested Party: FAMILY OF BENJAMIN LEONARD; Interested Party: THE SCOUT ASSOCIATION
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 April 2025
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Post Judgment Breach Enquiry
Outcome
Breaches and shortcomings found; contempt may have occurred but no proceedings initiated.
Legal Topics
Court Embargo, Confidentiality, Media Disclosure, Professional Conduct
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Court Embargo Confidentiality Media Disclosure Professional Conduct

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

THE KING (GLAISTER and CARR)

Claimant

ASSISTANT CORONER FOR NORTH WALES

Defendant

FAMILY OF BENJAMIN LEONARD

Interested Party

THE SCOUT ASSOCIATION

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Post Judgment Breach Enquiry

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether breaches of the court embargo occurred
  2. 2 Whether breaches constitute contempt of court
  3. 3 Distinction between court embargo and journalism embargo

Ratio Decidendi

Breaches of the court embargo occurred through disclosure of the confidential draft judgment and its substance to journalists and internal marketing staff, contrary to express terms and legal principles. Only the breach by Ms Pearson after clear instruction may constitute contempt, but lack of deliberate intent and mitigating circumstances render contempt proceedings unnecessary.

Court Disposition

Breaches and shortcomings found; contempt may have occurred but no proceedings initiated.

Orders

  • No summons issued under CPR 81.6(3)
  • No referral to Attorney General or Solicitor General